Re: [RFC PATCH v2] media: Virtual camera driver

[Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>]

On Tue, 03 Feb 2026, johannes.goede@oss.qualcomm.com wrote:
> The problem is that what you're suggesting is basically a much
> improved (using dma-buf is way better) v4l2-loopback driver and
> v4l2-loopback has been blocked from getting merged into the kernel
> because besides the mobile-phone camera use, the other main use-case
> is to allow running proprietary camera stacks like Intel's proprietary
> camerastack and then presenting that to userspace as a standard v4l2
> cam so that userspace apps will just work.

...

> The community concensus is that the solution here is for apps to
> access cameras through pipewire. Together with the shift of laptops
> cameras from UVC to "raw" MIPI cameras there also is a shift to
> running applications sandboxed as flatpacks because of the changing
> "cyber" security landscape. This is why pipewire was chosen because
> it also solves the accessing cameras from a sandbox issue.

Why is v4l2-loopback problematic from the perspective of facilitating
running proprietary camera stacks, but pipewire isn't?

BR,
Jani.

-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel